- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:06:56 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25140 --- Comment #4 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> --- (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #3) > thanks, its difficult to tell from the screenshots alone whether the usage > represent reasonable use cases or not. Yeah, I picked things from a Google Image search for 'form disclosure triangle' (or some such), I'm not confident all of them are valid. > One thing I noted was in the example > http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC115703.png there is a focus rectangle > around the auto updating 'summary'. I had a look at the interface in 8.1 and > found that the whole 'summary' is clickable and exposed as a button in acc > APIs. OK. > Currently I think the control aspect of details/summary is underspecified as > there is no method to provide an accessible name (LABEL)for the 'anonymous > control' that allows operation of the widget. whereas the accessibility > implementation example provided in the HTML acc API spec [1] does provide > clear advice. If the triangle needs an accessible name, can't it get the accessible name from the summary element? > Also from an accessibility/usability perspective having the summary element > as the actionable control provides a large activation area, as does the > current (seemingly) broken implementations. > > thus the suggestion in this bug to restrict the content allowed in summary. > > Do you see a way the specification of the summary/details element can be > improved to both allow nested controls and provide a clear method to > associate a visible label, with a large enough click area to accommodate > accessibility/usability requriements? How does e.g. OS X solve the large click area requirement? The triangle's click area doesn't need to be small, per spec, AFAICT. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 28 March 2014 12:06:57 UTC